Unintended retention of foreign body (surgical sponge): analysis of the rulings of the Sao Paulo Court of Appeal in cases of suspected medical error

• Autor(a) principal: Perim, André Yunes
• Data de Publicação: 2021
• Outros Autores: Takitane, Juliana
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: por
• Título da fonte: Saúde, Ética & Justiça (Online)
• Texto Completo: https://www.revistas.usp.br/sej/article/view/188920
• topic: Erro Médico; Reação a Corpo Estranho; Tampões de Gaze Cirúrgicos; Jurisprudência; Responsabilidade Civil; Pesquisa Empírica; Medical Error; Foreign-Body Reaction; Surgical Sponges; Jurisprudence; Damage Liability; Empirical Research

The unintended retention of a foreign body (URFB) in the abdominal cavity after a surgical procedure is a fact that can be seen in the medical literature, although it is still scarce. For the medical field, URFB, by itself, is not characterized as a medical error, since it may be related to the surgeon's involuntary fallibility. Civilist doctrine, on the other hand, usually characterizes it as a medical error, as it understands that forgetfulness occurs due to the lack of conscientious, attentive and committed care by the doctor. Due to the divergence between the medical and legal understandings regarding this issue, this study aims to analyze the understanding of the Sao Paulo Court of Appeal in cases of URFB (surgical sponge). This paper analyzed the rulings of that State Court, from 01/01/2015 to 12/31/2019. From the 59 analyzed rulings, 81.67% indicated a medical error, and the Gynecology/Obstetrics was the most prevalent medical specialty (67.34%). Joint liability and moral damages were considered in most cases (55.10% and 100%, respectively), and the arbitrated average compensation amount was R$ 41,240.40. Regardless of the nature of the surgery (elective, urgency or emergency), the evidence of URFB was characterized as a medical error.